I haven’t any evidence that any members of the House of Lords abuse their children, because there isn’t any. But on this logic, that state of affairs would presumably entitle the Department ‘For Children’ to probe their Lordships’ House for evidence of such abuse.

This is, simply, a hysterical witch hunt. Worse, it is the state’s apparatchiks treating our children as their property.

It’s prime instigator is unpeakable harpy and Children’s Minister, Delyth Morgan. She clearly has a bee in her bonnet abut the who child abuse thing, and believes that the state must have primacy over our children, and the rights of parents, in order to protect them.

She also obviously has a prurient obsession with the sexual habits of others, as she issued a further press release this week that contains this absolute gem

The full extent of sexual exploitation is hidden as it mostly takes place away from streets in private homes. It can take many forms from the seemingly ‘consensual’ relationship where sex is exchanged for attention/affection, accommodation or gifts to serious organised crime and child trafficking. What marks out exploitation is an imbalance of power within the relationship with the perpetrator holding some kind of power over the victim, increasing the dependence of the victim as the exploitative relationship develops.

That’s right. Your relationship may seem consensual, but even you can’t be sure until you let Delyth Morgan Sex Stasi into your house to check. Presumably they like to watch.

Excellent coverage of the whole issue of Authoritarian Statists and the NSPCC vs HE, liberty and democracy can be found at Bishop Hill Blog.

Further to my previous post on the fascism of the anti-fascists, a few quick notes based on a heated debate that took place yesterday, and was no doubt repeated around the country.

Below are rebuttals to a few points that kept being made both on the net and on TV.

It is OK to abandon democracy and curtail freedom of speech for the BNP because they

Are criminals

So what ? So are millions of people who trip speed cameras. Do we deny then the right to an opinion ? You can not change the rules simply to fit one category of criminal that you don’t happen to like*. We deny suffrage to prisoners. Those who are not held at Her Majesty’s Pleasure are not denied any of their democratic rights.

Have vile policies and intents*

Indeed they do. But it doesn’t matter. You don’t have to agree with a party’s policies or intents in order to allow them a democratic voice. I don’t agree with most of the Labour manifesto. It is utterly irrelevant what their policies are. They are a legal political party with democratically elected representatives. Period. If no one else likes their policies, no one will vote for them. That’s kind of the definition of democracy.

Use violence and intimidation*

That may be so, although the only reports that I could dig up are in militant left rags that are hardly credible sources, but let’s assume that it is so.

POLICE say they have seized a deactivated Kalashnikov rifle, imitation handguns, knives and a number of devices “made from fireworks” as part of a terrorism investigation.

Two men aged 25 and 19, a 16-year-old schoolboy and a 20-year-old woman were this morning still being held at Launceston police station under the Terrorism Act.
…
The investigation came about after a sharp-eyed police officer stopped a 25-year-old man – believed to be Andrew Sprague – on Friday night daubing anti-fascist graffiti along the North Street subway under Exeter Street, just a couple of hundred yards from Charles Cross police station.

It is understood the man had sprayed the word “Antifa” – a militant anti-fascist organisation with international links.

Fascism is a violent ideology. Throughout history, fascists have used violence against those who oppose them. Antifa is a continuation of the antifascist tradition of confronting fascism physically when it is necessary. Physical confrontation is only one of our tactics though, we do not aim to fetishise it as one tactic above all others, nor will we allow a hierarchy to develop based on the kudos of street-fighting. If an individual member feels unable to engage on this level they are no less worthy as an anti-fascist than any other member of the group, however those with a moral problem regarding this issue should be advised that this is not the group for them.

More than 30 gas-guzzling cars have been attacked by eco warriors, police said.

The tyres of the 4X4 vehicles were slashed and notes were left blaming drivers for climate change.

The campaign of destruction, over the last three weeks, has taken place in areas of Manchester popular with students.

The notes said the attack was not on the owner but on their choice of car.

Can you smell the hypocrisy ?

Represent a minority * viewpoint

No, don’t laugh. Donna Guthrie of Retards Unite Against Fascism told the BBC that it was OK to deny the BNP their freedom of speech (what’s left of it), which is legally defined as a basic human right because a) they are fascists and b) they got such a small share of the vote at the EU elections.

Really. So according to her, it’s OK to remove the human rights of minorities so long as they’re a minority that you really, really don’t like. Martin Smith made more or less the same point on Newsnight.

When did the Righteous have that meeting ?

And when the fuck did “I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” become “No platform for fascists” ? Oh wait, yes, I remember now.

More on “No Platform” later, perhaps.

* Eagle eyed readers will notice that these are exactly the same arguments that fascists supposedly use to vilify groups and then, e.g. cart them off to death camps. If they are the wrong arguments when they are in the mouths of fascists then they are the wrong argument in the mouths of the UAF and their lumpen trot mentalist cohorts.

Ambush Predator rightly mocks what the Telegraph describe as “The world’s leading scientists” for their rather hysterical claims that climate change is as much of a threat to humanity as nuclear war.

According to the group of scientists, Nobel laureates all

“It is comparable in magnitude [to nuclear warfare]. With business as usual we will have another five or six degrees Celsius [9 to 10.8F] – that could not sustain civilisation as we know it, which is quite comparable to a nuclear shoot-out. It would mean 80 metres rise in sea level – London, Paris and Copenhagen would disappear. This could not sustain nine billion people [the predicted population of the world.]”

As Ambush Predator asks

Is that all?

No giant marshmallow man? No radioactive monster lizard? No hot hail?

Pah! Some disaster movie…

So we loose a few cities, we can’t sustain so large a population as we’d like and it’s a bit warmer and that’s really about it. There is routinely a five or six degree Celsius temperature difference between where I’m sitting now and Devon. During the summer, Barcelona is usually around ten degrees Celsius hotter.

And while an 80 metre rise in sea level sounds quite bad, should one chose to believe such a figure, it certainly doesn’t match the sort of ‘long night, nuclear winter, all higher life forms scythed from the biosphere, nothing left but dust and cockroaches, etc.’ kind of Armageddon scenario that I grew up having nightmares about.

Perhaps I am just more cynical than Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent and author of this bum gravy, but since there seemed to be such a large disparity between what I was being told now, and what I remembered having been told before, I took ten seconds out of my busy schedule and undertook the minimum possible amount of research available to a 21st Century human with an internet connection. Yes, I googled it.

And well well, what do you say, looky there at the first link. A wikipedia article about nuclear winter.

Now I’m not one to blindly trust wikipedia articles, but a look through the sources for this article reveals it to be largely based on the paper “Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences” by Alan Robock, Luke Oman and Georgiy L Stenchikov. A 2007 study of the climatic effects of a nuclear war which is rather adequately summarised by the article.

For a conflict involving one third of the world’s nuclear arsenal

A global average surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C persists for years, and after a decade the cooling is still –4°C (Fig. 2). Considering that the global average cooling at the depth of the last ice age 18,000 yr ago was about –5°C, this would be a climate change unprecedented in speed and amplitude in the history of the human race. The temperature changes are largest over land … Cooling of more than –20°C occurs over large areas of North America and of more than –30°C over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions.

So, no agriculture for at least a decade. At all. None. Most of the surface of the earth at or below freezing. And that’s just the climate, without taking into account the additional destruction to life and infrastructure that would accompany a nuclear conflagration of such proportions.

So in point of fact it isn’t really even comparable, by any sane person, to the scenario outlined in the article for worst case climate change. A large scale nuclear dust up would, in all likelihood kill us all and most of the other warm blooded species on the planet.

You’d like to think that such a supposedly elite bunch of ‘scientists’ would have bothered to check the facts before issuing such utter tripe as a press release, but apparently if you’re a climate scientist, this isn’t necessary.

Either that or the bastards are happy to knowingly participate in a deceitful propaganda campaign that suits their agenda.

Either way, is it possible to have someone’s Nobel taken off them ?

Members of the St James’s Palace Nobel Laureate Symposium you are charlatans.

And Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, you are a complete waste of oxygen. It took me one google search to discredit this story but you have regurgitated it in it’s entirety without bothering to check a single fact, you stupid pointless bitch.

UPDATE : Bishop Hill catches The Times out in similar cut’n’paste climate journalism here.